From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5164 invoked by alias); 8 Jan 2002 23:25:59 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 5133 invoked from network); 8 Jan 2002 23:25:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO pacific-carrier-annex.mit.edu) (18.7.21.83) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 8 Jan 2002 23:25:53 -0000 Received: from grand-central-station.mit.edu (GRAND-CENTRAL-STATION.MIT.EDU [18.7.21.82]) by pacific-carrier-annex.mit.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id SAA18091; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 18:25:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from melbourne-city-street.mit.edu (MELBOURNE-CITY-STREET.MIT.EDU [18.7.21.86]) by grand-central-station.mit.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id SAA12529; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 18:25:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from department-of-alchemy.mit.edu (DEPARTMENT-OF-ALCHEMY.MIT.EDU [18.7.16.69]) by melbourne-city-street.mit.edu (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id SAA17319; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 18:25:51 -0500 (EST) Received: (from klee@localhost) by department-of-alchemy.mit.edu (8.9.3) id SAA29872; Tue, 8 Jan 2002 18:25:52 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 15:25:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200201082325.SAA29872@department-of-alchemy.mit.edu> From: Klee Dienes To: Michael Snyder cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] tracepoint.c X-SW-Source: 2002-01/txt/msg00154.txt.bz2 > Ah, I think we've had a communication breakdown. I thought that > your > previous patch was defunct, and we were waiting for you to resubmit > it. > Rereading the old thread, I can see where I lost continuity. Sorry > for > the confusion -- can we start again? > > I actually liked the 'save-breakpoints' command, and was thinking > of pinging you to see when you planned to resubmit it. But I don't > like it being grouped together with the 'future-break' command. > They're really separate, though related, and I'd rather consider > separate functionalities separately. Besides, the two together > make a really huge patch, one that it's difficult to review > line by line. OK, that's fair. My main reason for combining the patches was that they had mutual dependencies on each other ('save-breakpoints' knows about 'future' breakpoints so that it can save and restore them; the future-break code knows about the 'original-flags' field added by 'save-breakpoints'). But I can probably remove the future-break support from the 'save-breakpoints' command, and resubmit future-break once 'save-breakpoints' is committed. > As for the change to tracepoints, I had that sitting in my source > tree from your earlier submission, and I was just cleaning up loose > ends. I decided to make sure that didn't get lost, while waiting > for you to resubmit your patch. Sorry if I jumped the gun on you. Anything that reduces the size of our diffs is a win from my perspective; I just wanted to make sure I was understanding the process properly. > If a week goes by without a response, you should ping the list. > We might have gotten distracted ourselves, or there could be a > misunderstanding such as this one. OK, will do. I believe there's only one other patch outstanding at this point; I'm just eager to get it resolved, since it's holding up some of our more interesting Objective-C patches. I'll send a ping now; thanks for the advice!